This essay was submitted to reddit.com today and has sent over 30,000 hits to my blog and is now being picked up by other blogs. Some of the comments on reddit are noteworthy. Here is one that was expected:

"monesy: What I find ironic, is that Mr Gene, a champion of the moronic religious pseudoscience of ID/Creationism, knows anything about intellectual honesty."

This clearly shows the power of stereotype. There is nothing ironic at all about me writing that little essay. My guess is that Monesy's eyes saw "intelligent design" and his mind translated that as "moronic religious pseudoscience of ID/Creationism." Once the equation was set up and applied, there is no need to think about things. Notice that the essay doesn't cause him to pause and ponder if his stereotype applies; instead his steretype causes him cognitive dissonance.

It then gets more interesting. Someone points out that monesy is engaging in an ad hominem attack and he replies:

ID is moronic idea because it has neither a strong rational foundation, or empirical evidence that supports it. It is essentially baseless.

ID is religious because it requires a deity (i.e., the designer).

ID is pseudoscience because it is completely unscientific, yet is marketed as a valid alternative to a scientific theory."

None of his points about "ID" apply to me, yet he has me as a "champion" of these points.

Then someone else weighs in:

"you have to remove moronic from the discussion as it is insulting to the other party resulting in ad hominem. insulting the other party is intellectual dishonesty. just leave it as religious pseudoscience."

LOL. I appreciate the input, but it never occurs to these fellas that I am not a proponent of "religious pseudoscience" ("morinic" or not). Monesy's claimed focused on me.

Monesy then comes back for more:

"ID is a rationally absurd argument for the reasons I have stated above; hence, the adjective I have chosen, moronic, is quite appropriate

i.e., I am explicitly addressing the substance of the argument behind ID, not the person behind the argument/belief. The ad hominem charge against me is completely unwarranted.

ID is moronic, religious pseudoscience."

The guy has no clue as to the arguments I make, yet finds himself completely comfortable as casting me as a "champion" of such "moronic" beliefs.

It's funny how an essay on intellectual honesty can elicit such intellectually dishonest attacks.

There is one main lesson the ID debate has taught me - be very cynical about the so-called power of reason.

When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One's sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one's own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues' allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent's argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most - it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.